Living Car Free - The true cost of a journey.

It is not often I read something that clarifies my perspective. Today I was reading comments by the late Ken Kifer on Thoreau (http://www.kenkifer.com/Thoreau/index.htm). Ken's comments are the perfect compliment to Thoreau's writing - lucid and easily digested.

Thoreau takes the cost of a journey in terms of walking 30 miles in a day and really getting to experience the land, and compares it to working for a day to earn the fare for a similar journey by train. Ken's valid comment moves the comparison to the time it takes to earn the money to drive a car combined with the journey time in a car, to that of a bicycle.

On reflection, it is possible to see that the bicycle can win for many if not all journeys, this is especially the case for people below a certain income threshold, for whom long journeys are simply not an everyday option.

I am curious as to what that threshold might be.

This perked my interest because I was reading about a architectural firm in Florida called DPZ that is working on a new concept in home building called new Urbanism. They want to stem urban sprawl by smaller medium density towns where everything is within walking distance so having a car will not be mandatory. They discovered that the average American walks as little as 4 minutes a day outside of what was required to do their job. Add that to the average attention span reported by the London mail of 4 to 5 minutes and you can see how hard it will be changing people’s habbits. But what was even more interesting is that some places are willing to give up this new Urbanism for a car centrist life style. If I might quote the founder of DPZ: “Still, it's an uphill battle. Americans may say they hate their long commute, but there's little evidence that they're eager to abandon a lifestyle built around the car. If one city could represent the opposite of New Urbanism, it would be sprawling, decentralized Atlanta, where extreme commuting is fast becoming the norm. (Coincidence or not, Atlanta is one of the fastest growing metro areas in the U.S.) And sprawl is spreading overseas, to developing nations like China that are fast abandoning traditional, dense neighborhoods as they fall in love with the car. "We'll design a community for [Chinese clients] that is essentially Chinese, which has served them well for centuries," says Duany. "They say, 'No, we want Orange Country.' They're desperate to live in the dopey American way."

On reflection, it is possible to see that the bicycle can win for many if not all journeys, this is especially the case for people below a certain income threshold, for whom long journeys are simply not an everyday option.

I am curious as to what that threshold might be.

Well, tonight I had the option of riding home from a "No Coal" meeting in downtown or taking the bus. I waited for the bus till I had a chance to read the schedule and found that it wouldn't be along for 35 minutes.

Financial costs were a washout because I had to buy a bottle of water to get home, and that cost about the same as a bus ticket. But I got some exercise and the bus never caught up to me.

... If I might quote the founder of DPZ: “... Atlanta is one of the fastest growing metro areas in the U.S. ..." says Duany.

It would be interesting to know when that was written, relative to the current economic meltdown. I'm tempted to conclude that 'growth' has just become a permanent thing of the past. All data, by definition, is historical seconds after it is collected. Electricity is available 99.9% of the time based only on historical data - there is a strong argument that decisions made today might be better based on data gathered over the last 7 days, rather than data gathered over the last 7 years.

Few can deny that 'things' are changing at a much more accelerated pace today than at any point in the past. It will not take long to see if the stimulus package and all the billion dollar bailouts are effective. Few people have the fortitude to really consider what happens if the measures fail. For the majority it is not only outside their comfort zone, it is also outside of their mental paradigms - in order to recognize a situation, one needs at the very least to have either a memory of it from previous experience, or spent many hours in a simulator experiencing the same.

None of us have experienced the collapse of the USA and world economies, therefore none of us will recognize it until it is well underway.

It would be interesting to know when that was written, relative to the current economic meltdown. I'm tempted to conclude that 'growth' has just become a permanent thing of the past. All data, by definition, is historical seconds after it is collected. Electricity is available 99.9% of the time based only on historical data - there is a strong argument that decisions made today might be better based on data gathered over the last 7 days, rather than data gathered over the last 7 years.

Few can deny that 'things' are changing at a much more accelerated pace today than at any point in the past. It will not take long to see if the stimulus package and all the billion dollar bailouts are effective. Few people have the fortitude to really consider what happens if the measures fail. For the majority it is not only outside their comfort zone, it is also outside of their mental paradigms - in order to recognize a situation, one needs at the very least to have either a memory of it from previous experience, or spent many hours in a simulator experiencing the same.

None of us have experienced the collapse of the USA and world economies, therefore none of us will recognize it until it is well underway.


The report was from 2007. But what we do know historically is how fast people go from needs to wants after problems like the ones we are now facing. We do know that China has reported more private car purchases in January than the US. The 70s come to mind. 92 was a depressed time as well. So we have had some of these experiences before. The involvement by the government is different. But human nature hasn't changed. We know that people in the US would prefer not to walk if they don't have to.

So I agree we are exploring new lands here with this economy people are still willing to stand in line to buy Iphones. I do hope there is a change in our attitudes but I am not ready to hold my breath. Because to change now will require a massive infusion into our infrastructure and that isn't where the money is going.

Funny how "New" Urbanism follows the pattern of small towns and cities laid down around the end of the 19th century.:p There are still many small towns scattered about the country that could be revived, just need to get jobs back to them. Some of the towns are more viable than others. Most are in the 5,000-20,000 population size range. Most had some sort of industry at one time or another, typically manufacturing. Many are all but ghost towns now because they have become bedroom communities for larger cities up to 75 miles away. As transportation costs continue to rise and salaries erode, we won't have too many choices but to revert to them.

Aaron:)

I had to buy a bottle of water to get home, and that cost about the same as a bus ticket.

What a rip off! Have you noticed how our public water fountains are disappearing? Break the bottled water habit! Take the pledge! (http://water.newdream.org/)

Break the bottled water habit! Take the pledge! (http://water.newdream.org/)

Pledges? I don't need no stinking pledges ;)

For me bottled water is the exception, not the rule. And as you said, water fountains are disappearing.

Funny how "New" Urbanism follows the pattern of small towns and cities laid down around the end of the 19th century.:p There are still many small towns scattered about the country that could be revived, just need to get jobs back to them. Some of the towns are more viable than others. Most are in the 5,000-20,000 population size range. Most had some sort of industry at one time or another, typically manufacturing. Many are all but ghost towns now because they have become bedroom communities for larger cities up to 75 miles away. As transportation costs continue to rise and salaries erode, we won't have too many choices but to revert to them.

Aaron:)

How true. I grew up in a Small town that grew into a much larger town and as it did the jobs moved to the outskirts of the town with it. My grandmother never had to learn to drive and I can remember as a kid walking into downtown to shop with her. I live in a town much like that now, in the 20,000 population size range you mentioned. But the Town I grew up in was Anaheim and once the shopping malls moved to the outer edge of town along with what industry we had the town spread out. Yes Disneyland had an impact. Agricultural land was converted to housing tracks. They now refer to this trend as urban sprawl. Orange County lives and breathes urban sprawl and suburban flight. There are whole cities where the only business is retail outlets. But reverting will take some massive infusion of capital and like I said so far no one seems to be moving in that direction.

But reverting will take some massive infusion of capital and like I said so far no one seems to be moving in that direction.

But keep in mind that once a tipping point in history is reached, change often occurs very quickly. It took only about 20 to 30 years (roughly 1905-1930) for the US to convert from a nearly carfree society to a system that was very dependent on autos and trucks. Almost universal adoption of television took only about 5 years, starting in the late 1940s. Jet plane transportation was adopted almost instantaneously once the first jet airliners were invented, even though this was a very expensive transition.

Therefore, there's reason to believe that adoption of a carfree infrastructure will be very rapid when (if?) the economic and social tipping point is reached. Deep down, I hope that adoption of carlight infrastructure will prove to be the main stimulus for getting us out of the current economic depression.

It is not often I read something that clarifies my perspective. Today I was reading comments by the late Ken Kifer on Thoreau (http://www.kenkifer.com/Thoreau/index.htm). Ken's comments are the perfect compliment to Thoreau's writing - lucid and easily digested.

Thoreau takes the cost of a journey in terms of walking 30 miles in a day and really getting to experience the land, and compares it to working for a day to earn the fare for a similar journey by train. Ken's valid comment moves the comparison to the time it takes to earn the money to drive a car combined with the journey time in a car, to that of a bicycle.

On reflection, it is possible to see that the bicycle can win for many if not all journeys, this is especially the case for people below a certain income threshold, for whom long journeys are simply not an everyday option.

I am curious as to what that threshold might be.

This has always been one of my favorite "parables" from Thoreau. Personally, I figure that car ownership takes about 20 % of the average American's income. I can afford to work 20 % fewer hours (4 days a week instead of 5) because I don't have to give money to a machine.

But keep in mind that once a tipping point in history is reached, change often occurs very quickly. It took only about 20 to 30 years (roughly 1905-1930) for the US to convert from a nearly carfree society to a system that was very dependent on autos and trucks. Almost universal adoption of television took only about 5 years, starting in the late 1940s. Jet plane transportation was adopted almost instantaneously once the first jet airliners were invented, even though this was a very expensive transition.

Therefore, there's reason to believe that adoption of a carfree infrastructure will be very rapid when (if?) the economic and social tipping point is reached. Deep down, I hope that adoption of carlight infrastructure will prove to be the main stimulus for getting us out of the current economic depression.

What you are predicting is not a tipping point it is a collapse of society as we know it. All forms of transportation from the Horse to the airplane were adopted because it allowed freedom of movement. The society that could move farther and faster had an advantage in trade. In our early history the native american tribes that got horses had advantages over the tribe that were late adopters. It didn't take long before the advantages of machines for transportation, exploration and trade became a financial advantage to the group that used it. You might have a valid point because the method of propulsion using some form of ICE has side effects.

But even if we do find a way to get away from ICE it is pretty unlikely we will collapse into small towns like we had prior to cars. Some form of transportation will replace ICE sooner or later but I am not sure Cycling and walking will be that form. While there may truely be a financial advantage for the individulal to go car free there is very little incentive for the national government in that choice.

Adoption of an infrastructure away from what we have now will be dependant on promised financial return. Where would that funding come from? To believe there could be rapid change you also have to believe there is support by the people and their government. I am saying as it stands now there is very little interest by either of those two for funding such an infrastructure. I don't have a problem with your desired results I am just very skeptical that more than a handful are willing to go in that direction.

But keep in mind that once a tipping point in history is reached, change often occurs very quickly. It took only about 20 to 30 years (roughly 1905-1930) for the US to convert from a nearly carfree society to a system that was very dependent on autos and trucks. Almost universal adoption of television took only about 5 years, starting in the late 1940s. Jet plane transportation was adopted almost instantaneously once the first jet airliners were invented, even though this was a very expensive transition.

Therefore, there's reason to believe that adoption of a carfree infrastructure will be very rapid when (if?) the economic and social tipping point is reached. Deep down, I hope that adoption of carlight infrastructure will prove to be the main stimulus for getting us out of the current economic depression.

All of your historic transitions have [at least from a marketing perspective] been portrayed as a 'step up', or as things people should aspire to own or have access to.

There are two issues that make a transition to walking / cycling a very bad one. One relates to advertising [or education] and the other relates to the catalyst that gets society to the tipping point.

Firstly advertising - the car and upwardly mobile lifestyle advertisers e.g. airlines, etc. have a long history of evolving pedigree, with content honed and improved year after year. This was aided by truly massive budgets. If the cycling industry or government is to champion the impending transition, then it starts from scratch and will have anything but pedigree. They will appear to be the mongrel selling a 'step down'.

As experienced cyclists, you, I and others [especially] in this forum, already know and understand the reasoning behind the benefits of our lifestyle choices. It does not sound modest but I truly consider us more enlightened.

Secondly, the catalyst - the coming transition represents significant and [using current technology] irreversible impoverishment. The depression starting in 1929 and running through most of the 1930's was easily cured and probably cured itself despite tinkering by government institutions. There are multiple reasons for the self-cure of that depression, but most significant was that oil, from an oil companies perspective, was as close to free as it is possible to get, literally less than a dollar a barrel in some cases, it was close to the surface, very easy to locate (all the wells were on land) and once located came out of the ground under it's own pressure.

The relatively massive abundance of "easy" oil, was the primary driver of the economy for the next 70 years through until 2008.

The "easy" oil is gone, finished, burned, never to be seen again. We will always have oil in the future, alas it will become increasingly uneconomic to extract it, because it will be located in very hard to find places, under deep water in the Arctic, etc. combined with lower quality e.g. high sulfur content and it will require continuously increasing expense to extract and refine.

At the beginning of the oil-age, the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil could be used to extract 100 barrels of oil from the ground. By the 19080's that number had fallen to less than 50. Today the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil, if you are lucky and work hard, can produce between 2 and 10 barrels of oil. For an example in Canada, Albertan Tar Sands are not economic while oil is below $100 a barrel. Most deep water offshore facilities are not economic below $70 a barrel. The economic crisis and drop in demand has caused the price of oil to drop to circa $40 a barrel. This has resulted in wholesale abandonment of future investment by the oil companies.

A recovery in general economic terms is unlikely. But in the event that some kind of recovery did manifest itself, then the return of a demand for oil would be met with immediate failure, ergo no recovery - there is no more abundant cheap oil. The party is over. No more American dream. The non-negotiable lifestyle is at an end - people are just a little slow to catch on.

A recovery in general economic terms is unlikely. But in the event that some kind of recovery did manifest itself, then the return of a demand for oil would be met with immediate failure, ergo no recovery - there is no more abundant cheap oil. The party is over. No more American dream. The non-negotiable lifestyle is at an end - people are just a little slow to catch on.

I'm not sure what you mean by a recovery. Mostly we would think a recovery would be a return to normal. However, it's unlikely that will happen. Instead a change of direction is likely. Where that will take us is unknown. Perhaps it will be no more serious than Japan in the 1990s.

However, if the economic recession is coupled with an environmental catastrophe -- even one that happens slowly -- the future could be a little more severe than Japan in the 90s. I'm thinking of economic hardship imposed by climate change.

At a certain level of unemployment, particularly without any social benefits for the jobless, society pivots on the edge of disaster. It doesn't have to be all that bad. Unemployment can also give people the time they need to reflect and grow.... as long as they can eat and keep a roof over their heads, however humble.

I'm not sure what you mean by a recovery. Mostly we would think a recovery would be a return to normal. However, it's unlikely that will happen. Instead a change of direction is likely. Where that will take us is unknown. Perhaps it will be no more serious than Japan in the 1990s.

However, if the economic recession is coupled with an environmental catastrophe -- even one that happens slowly -- the future could be a little more severe than Japan in the 90s. I'm thinking of economic hardship imposed by climate change.

At a certain level of unemployment, particularly without any social benefits for the jobless, society pivots on the edge of disaster. It doesn't have to be all that bad. Unemployment can also give people the time they need to reflect and grow.... as long as they can eat and keep a roof over their heads, however humble.

Main-stream-media and current powers-that-be from city mayors to the president all have a view of recovery that embodies an eventual return to some variation of business-as-usual.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average Index has fallen from over 14,000 one year ago, to below 7,000 today. It continues to fall at an alarming rate.

If the Dow Index falls to 4,000 then that represents the value of only the energy utilities, food and agriculture and basically says that all other industries no longer have any intrinsic value.

Lets say the depression of 1929 ran for 10 years. The current depression and it is the start of one, will have no end that is recognizable to anyone currently above the age of [say] 18. People that are wealthy enough and fortunate enough to be above the storm will still be affected by the things they witness and hear about. They will also be living walking targets.

If people are really really lucky, the downward transition will occur gradually enough that people can adjust without too much suffering. This will be hard for all readers to understand, but I am an optimist and I see the collapse being catastrophic and permanent.

I see no return to any kind of "normalcy" that resembles what we had before - rampant growth and whole economic sectors that add no value. Too many people were getting wealthy from actions of others, the market, etc. As a result of the huge numbers taken out of lucrative jobs, I can't see how the housing market can recover either, at least for homes out in the exurbs. I imagine the economy will remain rather stagnant for years - some new industries (renewables, local agriculture, etc) will grow, but others will decline permanently (finance, industrial farming, etc). Hopefully we can retain some of our manufacturing as it becomes increasingly expensive to transport goods globally, and develop local agriculture.

With so many unemployed, we will probably see people sharing homes and maybe even vehicles eventually. I just don't see where the growth could come from at this point. We all have too much stuff - giant homes, cars, trucks, big-screen tv's, etc. There is enough "stuff" out there to last for a really long time if you look at it in terms of necessities. Hopefully the economy will stabilize at a sustainable level soon, even if growth remains unachievable, and it will allow us to transition to a more meaningful and sustainable model over time. However I feel for those in the emerging economies of the world that were just getting above the poverty line, many of whom will soon slip back below it again.

Getting back to the origional question or statement, "On reflection, it is possible to see that the bicycle can win for many if not all journeys, this is especially the case for people below a certain income threshold, for whom long journeys are simply not an everyday option."

And reading some of the following posts predicting no recovery how would the bicycle fit in with a population that has no where to go? If the extream happens there is no need for infrastructure because it has nothing to support.

Tell me this doen't remind you of a late night in college discussing life at a coffee shop?

At the beginning of the oil-age, the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil could be used to extract 100 barrels of oil from the ground. By the 1980's that number had fallen to less than 50. Today the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil, if you are lucky and work hard, can produce between 2 and 10 barrels of oil. For an example in Canada, Albertan Tar Sands are not economic while oil is below $100 a barrel. Most deep water offshore facilities are not economic below $70 a barrel. The economic crisis and drop in demand has caused the price of oil to drop to circa $40 a barrel. This has resulted in wholesale abandonment of future investment by the oil companies.


The price of oil today dropped to levels we haven't seen in four years yet the recession continues with the bottom no where in sight. The reason we can't get out is due to the fact no one has money because the motorcar makes it impossible for Americans to save.

Look at the forum members who are saving big bucks now that we are car free. In the middle of this recession, I have more money saved today than ever before in my life. However tens of thousands of the population are upside down on mortgages and cars and the banks aren't lending money. The price of fuel could drop to $1.00 a dollar a gallon and it still won't pull us out.

I looked at the price of condos and homes in my town and they are STILL over priced! They may have dropped 10-15% but many doubled in value just the past 4 years! The current drop in price is nothing, as homes are still unaffordable!

New cars at a local showroom are still selling at full price as they did during the boom. The dealers can't drop the lease any lower because they can't take a loss on new vehicles. We have a structural problem because our two economic drivers (Cars/Homes) are way overpriced and lenders are expecting buyers to come up with the money with easy credit. Well those days are over.

Folks, I said this before back in November but this is going to be a deep recession.

What you are predicting is not a tipping point it is a collapse of society as we know it. All forms of transportation from the Horse to the airplane were adopted because it allowed freedom of movement. The society that could move farther and faster had an advantage in trade. In our early history the native american tribes that got horses had advantages over the tribe that were late adopters. It didn't take long before the advantages of machines for transportation, exploration and trade became a financial advantage to the group that used it. You might have a valid point because the method of propulsion using some form of ICE has side effects.

But even if we do find a way to get away from ICE it is pretty unlikely we will collapse into small towns like we had prior to cars. Some form of transportation will replace ICE sooner or later but I am not sure Cycling and walking will be that form. While there may truely be a financial advantage for the individulal to go car free there is very little incentive for the national government in that choice.

Adoption of an infrastructure away from what we have now will be dependant on promised financial return. Where would that funding come from? To believe there could be rapid change you also have to believe there is support by the people and their government. I am saying as it stands now there is very little interest by either of those two for funding such an infrastructure. I don't have a problem with your desired results I am just very skeptical that more than a handful are willing to go in that direction.

I don't agree that the loss of car culture, which is probably inevitable in the long run, represents the collapse of our society. Many highly-developed parts of the world, such as Japan and Europe, are moving away from a car-centric culture while maintaining or even improving their people's quality of life. In many areas in the US, such as Seattle where I live, cars do not make you more mobile; in fact, they're often the worst transportation choice imaginable. (Of course, that doesn't stop millions of people from trying every day anyway...)

And the idea that there is no financial incentive for government (never mind taxpayers) to support a move away from cars is also something I have a very hard time believing. The expense of building and maintaining the infrastructure that makes car culture even possible is staggering by any estimate. I can't think of any single thing in Western civilization that's more heavily subsidized than cars. By comparison, what we spend on mass transit is negligible. When I think about it, I'm actually shocked that we as a culture, sixty years ago, actually thought it was a good idea to spend trillions of public dollars so that individuals could spend tens of thousands of their own dollars just to get to work and back.

And there are other costs of car culture, too. It occurred to me a few days ago that, in the greater Seattle area, the land area devoted to limited-access highways is probably at least four times greater than the total land area of all the parks in the region.

I'm not saying we don't need roads. We have to be able to move goods around at will, and I certainly don't expect my plumber to show up at my door with a new water heater he delivered by bike. But we'd need a lot fewer roads, and would have to spend a lot less to maintain them, if the majority of people didn't insist on owning their very own ICE and using it every single time they waddled from the house.

I do agree with you, though, that the vast majority of people in North America will not willingly give up car culture. Even here in bike-friendly (or rather, bike-tolerant) Seattle, I see more cars in a minute than I see bikes all day long.

The price of oil today dropped to levels we haven't seen in four years yet the recession continues with the bottom no where in sight. The reason we can't get out is due to the fact no one has money because the motorcar makes it impossible for Americans to save.

Look at the forum members who are saving big bucks now that we are car free. In the middle of this recession, I have more money saved today than ever before in my life. However tens of thousands of the population are upside down on mortgages and cars and the banks aren't lending money. The price of fuel could drop to $1.00 a dollar a gallon and it still won't pull us out.

I looked at the price of condos and homes in my town and they are STILL over priced! They may have dropped 10-15% but many doubled in value just the past 4 years! The current drop in price is nothing, as homes are still unaffordable!

New cars at a local showroom are still selling at full price as they did during the boom. The dealers can't drop the lease any lower because they can't take a loss on new vehicles. We have a structural problem because our two economic drivers (Cars/Homes) are way overpriced and lenders are expecting buyers to come up with the money with easy credit. Well those days are over.

Folks, I said this before back in November but this is going to be a deep recession.

I agree with 99%. "New cars at a local showroom are still selling at full price as they did during the boom." I don't think you mean what you actually wrote. They may still be labeled at full price, but they most definitely are not "selling". Both GM and GE are on the cards for Chapter 11 by the summer. The next few months will likely be the most historic for all of us that are not considered children, more historic than landing on the moon, or where you were when JFK was shot, or when 9/11 occurred. Big event history is happening now.

But keep in mind that once a tipping point in history is reached, change often occurs very quickly. It took only about 20 to 30 years (roughly 1905-1930) for the US to convert from a nearly carfree society to a system that was very dependent on autos and trucks. Almost universal adoption of television took only about 5 years, starting in the late 1940s. Jet plane transportation was adopted almost instantaneously once the first jet airliners were invented, even though this was a very expensive transition.

Therefore, there's reason to believe that adoption of a carfree infrastructure will be very rapid when (if?) the economic and social tipping point is reached. Deep down, I hope that adoption of carlight infrastructure will prove to be the main stimulus for getting us out of the current economic depression.

I believe we are in transition today. We are seeing the end of a lifestyle based on unlimited credit for housing and motorcars. It's going to be the most expensive transition in the history of this nation and as someone said above, it will be historic.

However, unlike the transition we made in the 1950's during which the population moved from cities to the burbs, this one will be much more expensive. Home values still have a long way to drop before they start moving again and don't be surpised to see plenty of new cars from 2009 still on the streets in 2025!

I agree with 99%. "New cars at a local showroom are still selling at full price as they did during the boom." I don't think you mean what you actually wrote. They may still be labeled at full price, but they most definitely are not "selling". Both GM and GE are on the cards for Chapter 11 by the summer. The next few months will likely be the most historic for all of us that are not considered children, more historic than landing on the moon, or where you were when JFK was shot, or when 9/11 occurred. Big event history is happening now.

If the dealers are in as bad a shape as they are claiming I would expect to see better pricing than what we are getting. My company just replaced 3 trucks and with all the wheeling, dealing, smoke, mirrors and fleet pricing we only got about 15% off sticker price. My wife purchased a truck back in '03 and got over 20% off of window sticker. FWIW we do our research and know what the invoice/wholesale costs are and negotiate from there, not down from window sticker.

It is going to be a moot point fairly soon anyway, personally I believe the economy still has a ways to go before we bottom out. And once it does the recovery is not going to look anything like the previous go around. I just don't see the wealth available to drive a recovery to past levels. The US is a huge debtor nation on all levels and until that debt is accounted for and retired we are going to stay in a hole.

Aaron:)

What you are predicting is not a tipping point it is a collapse of society as we know it. All forms of transportation from the Horse to the airplane were adopted because it allowed freedom of movement. The society that could move farther and faster had an advantage in trade. In our early history the native american tribes that got horses had advantages over the tribe that were late adopters. It didn't take long before the advantages of machines for transportation, exploration and trade became a financial advantage to the group that used it. You might have a valid point because the method of propulsion using some form of ICE has side effects.

But even if we do find a way to get away from ICE it is pretty unlikely we will collapse into small towns like we had prior to cars. Some form of transportation will replace ICE sooner or later but I am not sure Cycling and walking will be that form. While there may truely be a financial advantage for the individulal to go car free there is very little incentive for the national government in that choice.

Adoption of an infrastructure away from what we have now will be dependant on promised financial return. Where would that funding come from? To believe there could be rapid change you also have to believe there is support by the people and their government. I am saying as it stands now there is very little interest by either of those two for funding such an infrastructure. I don't have a problem with your desired results I am just very skeptical that more than a handful are willing to go in that direction.

As is so often the case, you confuse an absence of cars with an absence of all machinery. Cars are defined as motor vehicles for the personal and private transport of an indvidual. Trucks, buses, ambulances, farm machinery and the like are not included in this definition, and I imagine they will be used forever (although hopefully in a less destructive form.)

Another mistake is that you assume that cars are a total step forward. They are more like one step forward and one step back. As we learn more about the risks and drawbacks of cars, this becomes more like two steps back. While cars clearly did represent progress at an earlier point in history, at this time they are increasingly regressive, uneconomical, and unnecessary. This will become abundantly clear when (if?) car owners are required to pay the full and true costs for their machines.

As for where the funding will ome from to switch away from cars--it doesn't come from anywhere. As people quit owning cars, they'll quit spending money on cars. The freed income will easily finance alternative modes of transit.

As is so often the case, you confuse an absence of cars with an absence of all machinery. Cars are defined as motor vehicles for the personal and private transport of an indvidual. Trucks, buses, ambulances, farm machinery and the like are not included in this definition, and I imagine they will be used forever (although hopefully in a less destructive form.)

Another mistake is that you assume that cars are a total step forward. They are more like one step forward and one step back. As we learn more about the risks and drawbacks of cars, this becomes more like two steps back. While cars clearly did represent progress at an earlier point in history, at this time they are increasingly regressive, uneconomical, and unnecessary. This will become abundantly clear when (if?) car owners are required to pay the full and true costs for their machines.

As for where the funding will ome from to switch away from cars--it doesn't come from anywhere. As people quit owning cars, they'll quit spending money on cars. The freed income will easily finance alternative modes of transit.

Roody, even though your reply was not to me I still feel compelled to answer, unfortunately with a question: surely the only reason people will abandon cars is because of large impact events, for example loss of employment, if this is true then where is "the freed income" coming from?

Roody, even though your reply was not to me I still feel compelled to answer, unfortunately with a question: surely the only reason people will abandon cars is because of large impact events, for example loss of employment, if this is true then where is "the freed income" coming from?

Same point I was making. How will the "new" infrastructure be financed? But even from what little time I have spent in this forum it seems as if there one motivation for being car free was so you didn't "have" to work as much. If you don't work as much because you don't have to pay for a car you also don't make as much. So how will they get the money to start a new culture?

Same point I was making. How will the "new" infrastructure be financed? But even from what little time I have spent in this forum it seems as if there one motivation for being car free was so you didn't "have" to work as much. If you don't work as much because you don't have to pay for a car you also don't make as much. So how will they get the money to start a new culture?

It is obvious that some of us grasp what is happening and why. Conveying this understanding to others is not easily done.

Oil will inevitably soon cost more, once the reduced production filters through the system. The reduced production stems from the fact that the easy stuff is gone compounded by the oil exporting countries being forced to cut back investment because they are also being hit by the economic crisis and the current falling demand.

The money printing presses are running at full (digital) speed and eventually uncontrollable inflation will kick in. How will increasingly expensive oil imports be paid for if the printing presses are running at maximum and an increasing number of people are unemployed and not contributing to the tax base that is a prerequisite for currency creation. Can anyone imagine the president saying "hey folks this is the end of the dream, time to find a new comfort zone in a much lower impact lifestyle"?

I have pretty much abandoned any pretense at toning down the message, because it just not seem to get through. Hey everybody, a heads-up, THIS IS PERMANENT COLLAPSE. The least we can do is attempt to convince people that car-free is a viable option for quite a few people.


This is from a parallel discussion on The Oil Drum (http://campfire.theoildrum.com/node/5158#comments_top): Make no mistake, all paper currencies are in extreme danger. They will all depreciate due to the massive amount of money printing required to bail out the insolvencies and pay for stimulus plans. Add in social security, medicare and retiring boomers and you have government insolvency.

Oil and other resource depletion is part of the problem. The oil importers cannot possibly afford prices of last year and in coming years. Money will have to be printed, and this will only work for a short time. That is exactly what happened in the 1970's and it lead to high inflation. This time it will be much worse.

I believe the economy still has a ways to go before we bottom out. And once it does the recovery is not going to look anything like the previous go around. I just don't see the wealth available to drive a recovery to past levels. The US is a huge debtor nation on all levels and until that debt is accounted for and retired we are going to stay in a hole.

Aaron:)

Does this mean we can only spend what we what we actually earn?! OMG

Does this mean we can only spend what we what we actually earn?! OMG

Would you decide for yourself the point at which inflation becomes hyper-inflation, or would you defer to the talking heads on TV?

If you were reasonably certain in your own belief that hyper-inflation was starting - would you cash out of any investments, 401K, ISA, IRA, Roth, etc. and spend it all as fast as possible? Because at that point in time, a loaf of bread is $2, but next month it will be $3 and in 6 months your cash will have considerably less value.

Would you decide for yourself the point at which inflation becomes hyper-inflation, or would you defer to the talking heads on TV?

If you were reasonably certain in your own belief that hyper-inflation was starting - would you cash out of any investments, 401K, ISA, IRA, Roth, etc. and spend it all as fast as possible? Because at that point in time, a loaf of bread is $2, but next month it will be $3 and in 6 months your cash will have considerably less value.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. It's as if I'm on the bus, sitting next to a burly, crazy guy who's dressed in a tutu and rambling completely out of context.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. It's as if I'm on the bus, sitting next to a burly, crazy guy who's dressed in a tutu and rambling completely out of context.


Must be my stop. Think I'll get off this bus. :innocent:

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. It's as if I'm on the bus, sitting next to a burly, crazy guy who's dressed in a tutu and rambling completely out of context.

No need to apologize. Obviously, I completely misjudged you.

Some form of transportation will replace ICE sooner or later but I am not sure Cycling and walking will be that form.

SEGWAY! I'm not joking. If they can stay in business long enough for the collapse of car culture and the creation of smaller communities, the Segway will become extremely popular.

It has been said on this board that the Segway was a solution to a non-existent problem. That problem is just dawning on society. It probably will take another ten years for it to be recognized by the general population.

Even now battery technology is improving very fast. In five years the range of a Segway might be forty miles at top speed. Segways already have the range of the average automobile trip distance.

We already know that most people don't want to ride a bicycle for transportation. They want to be conveyed.

Segways look fun to me. I've never been on one. Honestly I wouldn't want to be standing up for a twenty mile ride out and twenty miles back traveling at 6-12.5 miles per hour. That being said, one really doesn't need a Segway to have a 40 mile range.

I think Mr. Kamen (the Segway inventor) has done a great thing for humanity with the invention of the Segway. Though some of us cyclists scoff at it, we can be sure that most people would choose to ride a Segway long before riding a bicycle. I'd rather be on the road with thousands of Segways than thousands of cars.

We are entering "THE DAWN OF THE AGE OF SEGWAY".

Does this mean we can only spend what we what we actually earn?! OMG

An amazing and forward thinking concept!:thumb::roflmao2:


Would you decide for yourself the point at which inflation becomes hyper-inflation, or would you defer to the talking heads on TV?

If you were reasonably certain in your own belief that hyper-inflation was starting - would you cash out of any investments, 401K, ISA, IRA, Roth, etc. and spend it all as fast as possible? Because at that point in time, a loaf of bread is $2, but next month it will be $3 and in 6 months your cash will have considerably less value.

Already did that to a certain extent...over the past 3 years we have tried to spend money mostly on durable goods that add value to our lives. Things that can be easily repaired and that are not disposable.




SEGWAY! I'm not joking. If they can stay in business long enough for the collapse of car culture and the creation of smaller communities, the Segway will become extremely popular.

It has been said on this board that the Segway was a solution to a non-existent problem. That problem is just dawning on society. It probably will take another ten years for it to be recognized by the general population.

Even now battery technology is improving very fast. In five years the range of a Segway might be forty miles at top speed. Segways already have the range of the average automobile trip distance.

We already know that most people don't want to ride a bicycle for transportation. They want to be conveyed.

Segways look fun to me. I've never been on one. Honestly I wouldn't want to be standing up for a twenty mile ride out and twenty miles back traveling at 6-12.5 miles per hour. That being said, one really doesn't need a Segway to have a 40 mile range.

I think Mr. Kamen (the Segway inventor) has done a great thing for humanity with the invention of the Segway. Though some of us cyclists scoff at it, we can be sure that most people would choose to ride a Segway long before riding a bicycle. I'd rather be on the road with thousands of Segways than thousands of cars.

We are entering "THE DAWN OF THE AGE OF SEGWAY".



RIIIIIGHT!:innocent: With a current cost of around $5,000+?:roflmao2: not too many people will be able to afford them.

Aaron:)

Same point I was making. How will the "new" infrastructure be financed? But even from what little time I have spent in this forum it seems as if there one motivation for being car free was so you didn't "have" to work as much. If you don't work as much because you don't have to pay for a car you also don't make as much. So how will they get the money to start a new culture?

People spend $500 mor more every month on their cars. The government further subsidizes cars to the tune of many billions, even trillions of dollars every year. Would these sums not go a long way toward paying for a different mode?

All of these network or system technologies cost many billions of dollars (in current dollars) to implement:


Canals in many regions
Great Wall of China
irrigation systems
Roman aqueducts
Pyramids
Transcontinental railways in US, Europe and Asia
Europeans migrating to America
Southerners moving to Detroit to make cars
telegraph
telephone
cell phone towers
parking lots
internet
cable TV
digital TV
two Iraqi wars for oil


In 5 minutes I could come up with another hundred examples, but maybe you get the idea. The point is, we are not suddenly too poor or too stupid to do something (set up a large and costly system) that we've literally one hundreds of times in the past. History is full of lessons on the possibility--make that probablility--that humans will develop bold new technological systems in a very brief period of time.

QUOTE "RIIIIIGHT! With a current cost of around $5,000+? not too many people will be able to afford them."QUOTE

Yes, $5000 or a little more at the full retail price with accessories. With an increase in the scale of production the costs could go down. Toyota is already making prototypes of its own version of the Segway. They must see a market for it or they wouldn't spend all that money on research.

Five thousand dollars is still way cheaper than buying a car. People who can't afford a $15,000.00 car might be able to afford a Segway. There are no monthly expenses for operating one of these other than electricity. The brushless electric motors probably will last more miles than any internal combustion engine. I bet there are people on this message board who own bicycles that cost a much as a Segway.

Most people won't even consider using a bicycle or even a motor scooter, for transportation, but they would consider a motorized no-sweat-involved Segway. Don't think like a cyclist. Think like a car driver and you'll see a different viewpoint.

Think like a car driver and you'll see a different viewpoint.

OK.

I should trade in my car and pay $5000+ for an object that provides no protection from the weather, no heat, no A/C, can't carry any more groceries than a six pack (if that), is too heavy to be easily transported into a residence or work place, probably can't be safely left outdoors without being stolen or vandalized, offers no protection in traffic, is extremely limited as to where it can be legally ridden, and will be stuck like a rock when the limited charge runs out? With a questionable resale value.

No darn thanks.

People spend $500 mor more every month on their cars. The government further subsidizes cars to the tune of many billions, even trillions of dollars every year. Would these sums not go a long way toward paying for a different mode?

All of these network or system technologies cost many billions of dollars (in current dollars) to implement:


Canals in many regions
Great Wall of China
irrigation systems
Roman aqueducts
Pyramids
Transcontinental railways in US, Europe and Asia
Europeans migrating to America
Southerners moving to Detroit to make cars
telegraph
telephone
cell phone towers
parking lots
internet
cable TV
digital TV
two Iraqi wars for oil

In 5 minutes I could come up with another hundred examples, but maybe you get the idea. The point is, we are not suddenly too poor or too stupid to do something (set up a large and costly system) that we've literally one hundreds of times in the past. History is full of lessons on the possibility--make that probablility--that humans will develop bold new technological systems in a very brief period of time.


Of all the things you listed what was the driving force? There has to be an incentive and in most of the cases you listed that incentive was profit. The Pyramids destroyed the finances of the kings that built them. Rome paid for aquaducts with taxes and by taking from occupied nations. Good for Rome not so good for occupied countries. Europeans left Europe for freedom to work 7 days a week and start the very system we have today. That system was what brought southerns to the north for jobs, the industrial age. And again work seven days a week but for more money not less. Most everything else you mentioned was for commerce. But they also had something else in common. A society that could afford to do the things you mentioned.

I believe as you do humans have the ability to move forward by developing technology. ;) But we rarely scratch off supporting infrastructure we have to start from scratch a new infrastructure. In my state there is a small company selling an all electric car that can go 100 miles and reach speeds of 80 MPH. They already have 4000 preorders for release due in October of this year. It looks like they are planning on a technology that uses the infrastructure and the tax base of the infrastructure to advance their plan. As a nation we need a plan not just an idea. As long as we live in a capitalist country, and so far we still do, there will have to be some financial benifit to get us to change direction. All I am saying is so far very few are interested in moving away from a car centrist America.

Today I got down the MTB pumped the tires up and changed pedals so I could use my straps and traps. Harbor frieght was packed and of all the people there two of us were riding bikes. The Autozone parking lot was full must have had 20 to 25 customers. Rode my bike over to my LBS and even they had a few people in it. Got a box of hammer gel and rode over to the Fresh and Easy grocery store. I don't know if you have them but they have no checkers, you scan yourself out. So I must have seen 300 people in 3 parking lots and 4 on bicycles. Those parking lots were paved because of infrastructure based on cars. The roads I was riding on were paved because of infrastructure based on cars. All that infrastructure was designed to make the businesses it served profitable.


What specifically do you think will change to cause a new direction on how a new infrastructure is financed? Because after the Pyramids were finished that society collapsed because they had no finances to defend themselves.

OK.

I should trade in my car and pay $5000+ for an object that provides no protection from the weather, no heat, no A/C, can't carry any more groceries than a six pack (if that), is too heavy to be easily transported into a residence or work place, probably can't be safely left outdoors without being stolen or vandalized, offers no protection in traffic, is extremely limited as to where it can be legally ridden, and will be stuck like a rock when the limited charge runs out? With a questionable resale value.

No darn thanks.

If through economies of scale and mass production, the price drops to the point that a bicycle and a Segway (http://www.segway.com/)are by and large at similar prices, then you would be hard pressed to say that the majority (of lazy obese Americans) would prefer a bicycle. This assumes that the options do not include a car.

Also the context of this thread, (and since I am the OP I ought to know) is about the true cost of a journey in today's society, a society that is currently in an undeniable rapid state of transition.

In addition your argument is specious - you are comparing apples with oranges.
No heating - put on a coat, hat and gloves.
No a/c - wear a t-shirt.
No luggage facility - carry your groceries in a back pack.
Runs out of fuel - like a car is that much easier to push.
Too heavy - your criticism should be aimed at material scientists. With proposed electric vehicles (EV's) the weight of the batteries (even if Lithium Polymer based) is a primary concern. When significant energy can be stored safely in a portable device that weighs less than 1Kg half the weight of a Segway can disappear. Take away the weight of the batteries and a Segway would probably weigh no more than an average bicycle. And so on and so forth.

The point is, nobody is arguing you should sell your car today and buy a Segway, but that in the future your choices are likely to be very different to those you have become accustomed to.

Once again, you use the tactic of introducing a case that nobody else has made, then you argue against it as if you are making some kind of point. We should just tell you where to get off.

Edit: I should add that I actually detest Segways and the laziness that they personify. But I'm a hypocrite and would not say no if I could get one for nothing.:lol:

Edit 2: Actually I have ambivalence toward Segways, on the one had detesting the laziness, on the other hand being very impressed with the technology.

Once again, you use the tactic of introducing a case that nobody else has made, then you argue against it as if you are making some kind of point. We should just tell you where to get off.

Edit: I should add that I actually detest Segways and the laziness that they personify. But I'm a hypocrite and would not say no if I could get one for nothing.:lol:

Edit 2: Actually I have ambivalence toward Segways, on the one had detesting the laziness, on the other hand being very impressed with the technology.

On the other hand, Jack, you are too darn lazy to read what is written or too filled with bile to understand it. I responded to a poster who specifically asked other posters to think about a Segway from a motorist's viewpoint, not from the viewpoint of a hypocritical geek overly impressed with a high tech over priced gee-gaw modified to meet some future requirement. Apparently only your viewpoint is permitted to be posted, eh?

If through economies of scale and mass production, the price drops to the point that a bicycle and a Segway (http://www.segway.com/)are by and large at similar prices, then you would be hard pressed to say that the majority (of lazy obese Americans) would prefer a bicycle. This assumes that the options do not include a car.

Also the context of this thread, (and since I am the OP I ought to know) is about the true cost of a journey in today's society, a society that is currently in an undeniable rapid state of transition.

In addition your argument is specious - you are comparing apples with oranges.
No heating - put on a coat, hat and gloves.
No a/c - wear a t-shirt.
No luggage facility - carry your groceries in a back pack.
Runs out of fuel - like a car is that much easier to push.
Too heavy - your criticism should be aimed at material scientists. With proposed electric vehicles (EV's) the weight of the batteries (even if Lithium Polymer based) is a primary concern. When significant energy can be stored safely in a portable device that weighs less than 1Kg half the weight of a Segway can disappear. Take away the weight of the batteries and a Segway would probably weigh no more than an average bicycle. And so on and so forth.

The point is, nobody is arguing you should sell your car today and buy a Segway, but that in the future your choices are likely to be very different to those you have become accustomed to.

Once again, you use the tactic of introducing a case that nobody else has made, then you argue against it as if you are making some kind of point. We should just tell you where to get off.

Edit: I should add that I actually detest Segways and the laziness that they personify. But I'm a hypocrite and would not say no if I could get one for nothing.:lol:

Edit 2: Actually I have ambivalence toward Segways, on the one had detesting the laziness, on the other hand being very impressed with the technology.


I cannot ever see a Segway being as low cost as a bicycle. There are entirely too many high price raw materials involved. You also have to consider the possibility of hyper inflation, but even ignoring that I think it highly unlikely that Segways will ever fall below the $3000 price point.

Aaron:)

I cannot ever see a Segway being as low cost as a bicycle. There are entirely too many high price raw materials involved. You also have to consider the possibility of hyper inflation, but even ignoring that I think it highly unlikely that Segways will ever fall below the $3000 price point.

Aaron:)

From EnGadget August 2007 (http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/21/clever-students-create-cheapo-diy-segway/).


A tenacious combination of high school and MIT students have put together their very own DIY Segway, which would likely have Dean Kamen rolling in his grave... if he were actually dead. The team of ingenious do-it-yourself'ers put together a fairly workable Segway knock-off for less than a thousand dollars that can keep pace with the actual model (11 MPH versus the real-deal's 12.5). By using off-the-shelf supplies, like a Machine Science XBoard microcontroller, pieces of Lexan for the steering mechanism, and light, cheap aluminum for the frame, the gang was able to assemble a fairly stripped down version of the scooter. Apparently, the kids are still working out the kinks, but if this keeps up, Kamen and crew might have to start watching their backs. Check the video after the break to see the still-shaky personal transporter in action.

Perhaps there are patent issues or (current) market demand issues that explain why the cheap version has not appeared in the shops. I agree that the cheapest bicycles will always cost considerably less than the cheapest Segway.

From EnGadget August 2007 (http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/21/clever-students-create-cheapo-diy-segway/).



Perhaps there are patent issues or (current) market demand issues that explain why the cheap version has not appeared in the shops. I agree that the cheapest bicycles will always cost considerably less than the cheapest Segway.

Patent issues are a possibility; along with recouping development costs, advertising/marketing, liability, etc, etc. Plus I bet they didn't allow for labor costs, or profit in their $1000 knock off.

Aaron:)

Patent issues are a possibility; along with recouping development costs, advertising/marketing, liability, etc, etc. Plus I bet they didn't allow for labor costs, or profit in their $1000 knock off.

Aaron:)

Whilst all of the above is true. You have not admitted that the $1,000 is also the cost of using common off-the-shelf components and materials to build a one-off prototype - there was no consideration of discounts afforded by mass production or bulk purchase of parts. Labor costs for bulk manufacturing would be minimal if based on modern automation. The Segway is little more than a glorified upright vacuum cleaner and ought to cost as much. Given that neither of us is privy to real Segway accounting data and neither of us is likely inclined to do the work necessary to determine a real minimum realistic cost I guess we might just have to agree to disagree. But you could at least admit that your $3,000 figure was off by a factor of 200%.

The Segway is little more than a glorified upright vacuum cleaner and ought to cost as much.

Good analogy! :thumb:

From a motorist's viewpoint, most motorists would be just as likely to voluntarily replace their car with an upright vacuum cleaner for transportation purposes as with a Segway, no matter what the price.

Of course the $1000 Segway exists only in your fantasy scenario of zero labor costs, zero legal costs (highly unlikely due to the likely claim of patent infringement and reverse engineering), zero tooling cost, zero distribution cost, zero manufacturing plant costs and zero profits.

Good analogy! :thumb:

From a motorist's viewpoint, most motorists would be just as likely to voluntarily replace their car with an upright vacuum cleaner for transportation purposes as with a Segway, no matter what the price.

Of course the $1000 Segway exists only in your fantasy scenario of zero labor costs, zero legal costs (highly unlikely due to the likely claim of patent infringement and reverse engineering), zero tooling cost, zero distribution cost, zero manufacturing plant costs and zero profits.

If all the costs are zero (labor, legal, tooling, plant, etc.) and there is a selling price of $1,000 then how can the profit also be zero?

If all the costs are zero (labor, legal, tooling, plant, etc.) and there is a selling price of $1,000 then how can the profit also be zero?

The alleged expense of $1000 for common off-the-shelf components and materials.

I got some exercise and the bus never caught up to me.

I used to love racing the bus on my morning commute. There was a 5 mile stretch where me and the bus were on the same street. I almost always won unless every light was green. And this was on a wal-mart bike :lol:

The alleged expense of $1000 for common off-the-shelf components and materials.

I see. So information sourced from people at MIT (http://web.mit.edu/) falls into the category of "allegation" and obviously cannot be trusted. In addition, you subscribe to the school of thought that of-the-shelf one-time purchases are going to be at exactly the same price as bulk purchases with the possibility of long-term agreements for future purchases. :rolleyes:

You said "Too heavy" and I answered "your criticism should be aimed at material scientists";


A new lithium-ion electrode allows batteries to be charged and discharged in 10 seconds flat. Developed by Gerbrand Ceder, a professor of materials science at MIT, it could be particularly useful where rapid power bursts are needed, such as for hybrid cars, but also for portable electronic devices. In testing, batteries incorporating the electrodes discharged in just 10 seconds. In comparison, the best high-power lithium-ion batteries today discharge in a minute and a half, and conventional lithium-ion batteries, such as those found in laptops, can take hours to discharge. The new high rate electrode, the researchers calculate, would allow a one-liter battery based on the material to deliver 25,000 watts, or enough power for about 20 vacuum cleaners."
-- from SlashDot.Org article today (http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/11/2222216).

It should be obvious to readers in the peanut gallery which of us has a clue what we are talking about. Is that Bengay you are using? :rolleyes:

It's rare that I read more than two or three posts in a general thread like this before deciding that it's not worth it to continue. Thanks for starting this one, HoustonB, I've enjoyed it. I don't have anything substantive to contribute that hasn't already been said, but I thought I'd pass along these three nuggets:

1) A former coworker of mine was a senior marketing something or other on the Segway project before and through the original launch, and apparently Kamen is unrepentant about the failure of that idea. Any other company would declare the Segway dead, but who knows, it may eventually succeed because Kamen refuses to let it go. Personally, I can't see a place for it, not for institutions, not for individuals. I don't know how much time he devotes to the Segway, but I think Kamen's time is probably better spent on his universal water filter.

2) James Howard Kunstler is a bit of a crank, but he's a funny crank, and I think anyone interested in the philosophical underpinnings of the New Urbanist ethos will enjoy his primer, in the form of a presentation given at the TED conference: James Howard Kunstler: The tragedy of suburbia (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia.html) (Warning: Rated PG for some mild language)

3) I recently read an article about the pedestrianization of Copenhagen's city center (by Jan Gehl, apparently something of an iconic figure among urban planners). Before it was approved, there was raucous outcry from the retailers, who insisted that reduced access for autos would strangle the commerce and put them out of business. The opposite happened. Google "Jan Gehl Copenhagen" for more, but my point in mentioning it is that I really hope we can ditch the notion that nothing which succeeds outside of America could possibly work here, as if we're a different species.

For a start, *real* bike lanes would be nice.

-- Buck

I see. So information sourced from people at MIT (http://web.mit.edu/) falls into the category of "allegation" and obviously cannot be trusted. In addition, you subscribe to the school of thought that of-the-shelf one-time purchases are going to be at exactly the same price as bulk purchases with the possibility of long-term agreements for future purchases. :rolleyes:

You said "Too heavy" and I answered "your criticism should be aimed at material scientists";



It should be obvious to readers in the peanut gallery which of us has a clue what we are talking about. Is that Bengay you are using? :rolleyes:

Your answers about costs of bringing to market the ersatz Segway, such as they are, both ignoring the costs of manufacturing and marketing the item to include labor, distribution, tooling, utilities, building rent and maintenance, advertising,and profit, as well as fantasizing/speculating about the future savings in weight and parts costs to be delivered by developments from material scientists and bulk purchases of the magic ingredients of the MIT home brew - indicate exactly how much you know what you are talking about. Better stick to computer software.